On the left there is a symbol to attract the eye and interest the observer. Note that a dollar mark is shown on top of the picture of the bale of cotton in one case and the sheaf of wheat in the other, to indicate that the value of the crop is considered rather than the number of units. After the pictures, which may be thought of as "ej^e catchers," we have the figures, and then

Dutch E, Austra- United Siam Indies lia Kingdom

29,937 15,807 12,755 5,05* 3,000

Pfiilips' Chamber of Comm^ce Alias

Fig. 26. A Year's Production of Tin in Tons

This illustration, taken from the same source as Fig. io, is even more confusing. The perspective of the tops of the pigs of tin is such that there is no nay of telling whether \-isual comparison should be made by height, area or volume

COTTON % 820,320,000

WHEAT $561,051,000

Fig. 27. Value of Cotton and of Wheat Produced in the United States in 1910

Here is a suggestion for a standard arrangement for horizontal-bar comparisons. The illastrations at the left make the presentation popular in form, .vet actual figures for the data are given at the left-hand end of the bars

the bars plotted to scale for quick comparison by the reader. This cut could have been improved slightly if the spaces between the sep-

GRAPHIC METHODS

arate groups of three figures had been made somewhat larger and if the black bars had been made about one and one-half times as wide as shown here.